SYED ROUF AHMAD Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a competing candidate for the selection of Constable in IRP 13th Bn, has been selected by the Police Recruitment Board and accorded approval vide Order No. 1935 of 2016 dated 25.06.2016 and adjusted in IRP 13th Bn vide APHQ J & K, Order No. 448 of 2016 dated 09.07.2016 on reporting the commandant IRP 13th Bn for issuance of formal orders in tune with the approval granted by the PHQ and APHQ was denied the appointment on the ground that he is deficient in height standard by 25 cms.

(2.) Needless to mention that the process of selection was initiated by the Police Recruitment Board and on completion of the process the police recruitment board had recommended the candidates for appointment. Denial of the benefit of appointment formed a ground for the petitioner to approach this court for seeking justice in SWP no. 2096/2016 and this court in terms of order dated 27.12016, while noticing the relevant facts with reference to claim made disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the competent authority to decide the claim of the petitioner in terms of circular dated 17.10.2016 issued by the DGP within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. On receipt of the order of the court, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that the Circular which was issued in October, 2016 in respect of Transparent Recruitment Polilcy has no retrospective effect so as to make it applicable to recruitments carried out earlier. Mr J. A. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited the attention of this Court to the Circular issued by the DGP in terms of Order No. Pers-Recpt/A117-2015/60164-84 dated 17.10.2016 only to demonstrate that in terms of the decision of the DGP the competent authorities were asked not to recheck the physical standards which was already conducted by the Police Recruitment Board with further direction to issue the appointment orders by taking formal approval as final.

(3.) The impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the DGP is questioned in the instant petition on variety of grounds with particular reference to the decision being arbitrary and unfair exercise of powers. Mr Kawoosa, further submits that the petitioner and all those candidates who competed in the process of selection against 3622 posts of constable in the J & K Police Executive (Armed) are similarly situated with the petitioner and in the case of candidates selected, the DGP has, in terms of the circular dated 17.10.2016, asked the competent authorities to take the physical tests conducted by the Police Recruitment Board as final and not to recheck the physical standards tests with further direction to issue appointment orders on the formal approval of the PHQ. But in the instant case the decision is based on an unwarranted approach thereby violating the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no denial to the fact that petitioner has competed in the process of selection against the post of Constable which process is initiated and taken to logical conclusion by the Police Recruitment Board. The process of selection included the physical standard test etc.